Abracadabra!

[Moodshadow]

Being somewhat of a word-nerd, when I heard someone today use the word "Abracadabra!" I was curious as to its origin, so I did some research and discovered something very interesting. If you go to Wikipedia and just put in that word, you will see the same fascinating diagram and information that I found. Seeing that reminded me of something I'd read written by Lucy Mack Smith that, at the time, I totally did not understand - but now I do. Here's what she wrote:

I shall change my theme for the present but let not my reader suppose that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopt our labor and went [at] trying to win the faculty of Abrac drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business we never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation but whilst we worked with our hands we endeavored to remember the service of & the welfare of our souls." [sic]

Lavina Fielding Anderson, Lucy's Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith's Family Memoir.

This is also reminiscent of the Jupiter Talisman that has been discussed here on CF before - the silver medallion engraved with magic inscriptions that Joseph Smith had on his person when he was fatally wounded. It is no secret, of course, that the Smith family was fascinated with and were devoted practitioners of occult magic. At first the LDS church tried to soft-pedal this idea, since members are strongly counseled to avoid the occult and its practices. But since the Smiths' preoccupation with it is so well documented, there was just no sweeping it under the rug, and church leaders now concede the reality of the family's involvement. Historian D. Michael Quinn wrote this:

Friendly [meaning LDS] sources corroborate hostile non-Mormon accounts. As historian Richard L. Bushman has written: "There had always been evidence of it ('money-digging in the Smith family') in the hostile affidavits from the Smiths' neighbors, evidence which Mormons dismissed as hopelessly biased. But when I got into the sources, I found evidence from friendly contemporaries as well, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, Oliver Cowdery, and Lucy Mack Smith. All of these witnesses persuaded me treasure-seeking and vernacular magic were part of the Smith family tradition, and that the hostile witnesses, including the 1826 trial record, had to be taken seriously." BYU historian Marvin S. Hill has likewise observed: "Now, most historians, Mormon or not, who work with the sources, accept as fact Joseph Smith's career as village magician."

D. Michael Quinn, Magic World View, p. 59.

So my question for the LDS posters here is: If Joseph Smith was receiving revelation direction from God, and God is now telling Smith's successors that the practice of the occult is Satanic, why didn't Smith drop the practice of it himself, and instruct his family and friends to do likewise, as inspired counsel? Do you believe that it was an oversight on God's part at the time, not to mention it to Smith?

 

[SoftSpoken]

I don't believe God overlooked anything. I believe that from his youth Joseph had a sincere belief in using the rods and such to locate treasure. I believe God chose him in spite of this perceived weakness in him, which weakness was given to him of God in the first place. Why didn't he drop it? I don't know. Why haven't I overcome all my weaknesses yet? If God shows mercy to me after all this time, why should he have been impatient with Joseph? Why should I be?

Just some of my thoughts

 

[cyberlizard]

alternatively the word derives from the Spanish meaning 'open the box'.


Steve

 

[Moodshadow]

alternatively the word derives from the Spanish meaning 'open the box'.Steve

I'm always interested in etymologies. What is the source of your information, CL?

 

[Swart]

alternatively the word derives from the Spanish meaning 'open the box'.

I thought it came from London during the 'Black Plague'?

 

[Obiwan]

double post

 

[SoftSpoken]

I'm always interested in etymologies. What is the source of your information, CL?

Well the Spanish influence could be there loosely, but the translation doesn't quite fit. Abra is the third-person subjunctive form of the verb Abrir which means "to open." But box in Spanish is caja. So to say open the box in command form, one would say Abre la caja. Were it in the subjuntive form it would read Que abra la caja. There are also other Spanish equivalents to box, but none of them seem to be any closer to cadabra than caja. Maybe in ancient Spanish it would be closer. That's a possibility. I don't know any ancient Spanish though.

 

[Obiwan]

Being somewhat of a word-nerd, when I heard someone today use the word "Abracadabra!" I was curious as to its origin, so I did some research and discovered something very interesting. If you go to Wikipedia and just put in that word, you will see the same fascinating diagram and information that I found. Seeing that reminded me of something I'd read written by Lucy Mack Smith that, at the time, I totally did not understand - but now I do. Here's what she wrote:

I shall change my theme for the present but let not my reader suppose that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopt our labor and went [at] trying to win the faculty of Abrac drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business we never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation but whilst we worked with our hands we endeavored to remember the service of & the welfare of our souls." [sic]

Lavina Fielding Anderson, Lucy's Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith's Family Memoir.

This is also reminiscent of the Jupiter Talisman that has been discussed here on CF before - the silver medallion engraved with magic inscriptions that Joseph Smith had on his person when he was fatally wounded. It is no secret, of course, that the Smith family was fascinated with and were devoted practitioners of occult magic. At first the LDS church tried to soft-pedal this idea, since members are strongly counseled to avoid the occult and its practices. But since the Smiths' preoccupation with it is so well documented, there was just no sweeping it under the rug, and church leaders now concede the reality of the family's involvement. Historian D. Michael Quinn wrote this:

Friendly [meaning LDS] sources corroborate hostile non-Mormon accounts. As historian Richard L. Bushman has written: "There had always been evidence of it ('money-digging in the Smith family') in the hostile affidavits from the Smiths' neighbors, evidence which Mormons dismissed as hopelessly biased. But when I got into the sources, I found evidence from friendly contemporaries as well, Martin Harris, Joseph Knight, Oliver Cowdery, and Lucy Mack Smith. All of these witnesses persuaded me treasure-seeking and vernacular magic were part of the Smith family tradition, and that the hostile witnesses, including the 1826 trial record, had to be taken seriously." BYU historian Marvin S. Hill has likewise observed: "Now, most historians, Mormon or not, who work with the sources, accept as fact Joseph Smith's career as village magician."

D. Michael Quinn, Magic World View, p. 59.

So my question for the LDS posters here is: If Joseph Smith was receiving revelation direction from God, and God is now telling Smith's successors that the practice of the occult is Satanic, why didn't Smith drop the practice of it himself, and instruct his family and friends to do likewise, as inspired counsel? Do you believe that it was an oversight on God's part at the time, not to mention it to Smith?

Dishonorable critics should learn to "whole" truth before they judge things.

1. LDS are well aware that people including Joseph often had "lucky charms", and that he when discovering his prophetic ability as a young man as young men often do tried to use it to find treasure. He had some success, but mostly did not. Such hardly translates into the "occult". But what is knew with dishorable critics. Take a little truth and use it to your own means of slander towards your target.

2. Both dishonorable critics and Quinn (who by the way is partially a dishonorable critic, not a "pro-LDS" source), misuse the quote and ignore important facts. Lucy Smith was DENYING the practice, not stating they did it.

See the below article for the FULL TRUTH!

From FAIR..... Joseph Smith/Occultism and magic/Lucy Mack Smith on "faculty of Abrac" and "magic circles" - FAIRMormon

Joseph Smith/Occultism and magic/Lucy Mack Smith on "faculty of Abrac" and "magic circles"

Criticism

Critics claim that Lucy Mack Smith's discussion of the "faculty of Abrac" and "magic circles" is evidence for the strong role which "magick" played in the Smith family's early life.
See also: Source(s) of the criticism

Response

Critics generally neglect to provide the entire quote from Lucy. Dr. William J. Hamblin notes that there is "an ambiguously phrased statement of Lucy Mack Smith in which she denied that her family was involved in drawing "Magic circles." [D. Michael] Quinn maintains, because of an ambiguity of phraseology, that Lucy Mack Smith is saying that her family drew magic circles. The issue revolves around how the grammar of the original text should be understood. Here is how I read the text (with my understanding of the punctuation and capitalization added).

Now I shall change my theme for the present. But let not my reader suppose that, because I shall pursue another topic for a season, that we stopped our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business. We never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation. But, whilst we worked with our hands, we endeavored to remember the service of, and the welfare of our souls.
​

Here is how I interpret the referents in the text.

Now I shall change my theme for the present [from a discussion of farming and building to an account of Joseph's vision of Moroni and the golden plates which immediately follows this paragraph]. But let not my reader suppose that, because I shall pursue another topic [Joseph's visions] for a season, that we stopped our labor [of farming and building] and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business [farming and building, as the anti-Mormons asserted, claiming the Smiths were lazy]. We never in our lives suffered one important interest [farming and building] to swallow up every other obligation [religion]. But, whilst we worked with our hands [at farming and building] we endeavored to remember the service of, and the welfare of our souls [through religion].
​

Thus, as I understand the text, Lucy Smith declares she is changing her theme to the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. In the public mind, that story is associated with claims that the Smiths were lazy and involved in magical activities. By the time Lucy Smith wrote this text in 1845, anti-Mormons were alleging that Joseph had been seeking treasure by drawing magic circles. She explicitly denies that they were involved in such things. She also denies that the Smiths were lazy. She wants to emphasize that, although she is not going to mention farming and building activities for a while, these activities were still going on. Quinn wants to understand the antecedent of "one important interest" as "trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing Magic circles or sooth saying" (p. 68). I believe that the antecedent of "one important interest" is "all kinds of business," meaning farming and building. Quinn maintains the phrase to the neglect of means that they pursued magic to some degree, but not to the extent that they completely neglected their farming. I believe that the phrase to the neglect of means that they did not pursue magic at all, and therefore did not neglect their farming and building at all: they were not pursuing magic and thereby neglecting their business.

Although the phrasing is a bit ambiguous, the matter can easily be resolved by reference to the rest of Lucy's narrative. Contra Quinn, Lucy Smith's text provides no other mention of the supposedly "important interest" of magical activities but does deal prominently with their religious and business concerns. If magic activities were such an important part of Joseph Smith's life and Lucy was speaking of them in a positive sense as "important interests," why did she not talk about them further in any unambiguous passage? My interpretation fits much better into the context of Lucy Smith's narrative as a whole, in which she amply discusses farming and family life, as well as religion and Joseph's revelations—the two important interests of the family—but makes no other mention of magic.

As Richard Bushman notes, "Lucy Smith's main point was that the Smiths were not lazy as the [anti-Mormon] affidavits claimed—they had not stopped their labor to practice magic." Thus, ironically, Quinn is claiming that Lucy Smith's denial of the false claims that the Smith family was engaged in magical activities has magically become a confirmation of those very magical activities she is denying![1]

 

[Swart]

1. LDS are well aware that people including Joseph often had "lucky charms",

Hmm. This may be OT, however this line reminded me of an incident that occurred when I was VERY young. My GM (on my Father's side) took me aside at her farm and gave me an object that she said would bring me luck and that I should keep it with me at all times. It wasn't long before my Mother found it and asked me what it was and where I got it from. She was furious when she found out and it caused a few problems in the family. I still remember my Mother calling her a "superstitious old bat".

Anyhow, I mention it because it did occur to me that not too long ago even respectable mainstream Christians (my GM was 'High' Church of England - she always emphasised the 'High' ) were frequently superstitious. It would be incorrect to view history through the lenses of late 20C evangelical Christianity.

 

[Moodshadow]

*sigh* C'mon, Obi, I thought we got past that "dishonorable critics" thing. You can hardly call it slander when it's documented historical fact - so well documented that even the church doesn't bother to deny it, so why should you? And yes, I agree, SS, that "caja" is quite a stretch from "cadabra," and I thought so when CL made that post, but I thought before I embarrassed myself I'd at least ask for his sources. And since the cryptic diagram is right there (in Wikipedia) and actually spells out the [sorta]word "abracadabra," calling it Spanish in derivation seemed really far-fetched to me. And yes, Swart, I know that many if not most 19th-century people were highly superstitious and employed all kinds of magical/occult devices and had traditions that seem weird to us now. My own grandmother had a few of her own that she got from her mother, and so on, like yours. But most 19th-century people, including our grandparents, didn't claim to be receiving direct communication from Almighty God on a regular basis, and for the life of me I can't figure out why Joseph Smith would be even remotely interested in these practices and symbols and talismans if he really had the Ultimate Source of knowledge at his disposal.

 

[Swart]

*sigh* C'mon, Obi, I thought we got past that "dishonorable critics" thing. You can hardly call it slander when it's documented historical fact - so well documented that even the church doesn't bother to deny it, so why should you?

And yes, I agree, SS, that "caja" is quite a stretch from "cadabra," and I thought so when CL made that post, but I thought before I embarrassed myself I'd at least ask for his sources. And since the cryptic diagram is right there (in Wikipedia) and actually spells out the [sorta]word "abracadabra," calling it Spanish in derivation seemed really far-fetched to me.

And yes, Swart, I know that many if not most 19th-century people were highly superstitious and employed all kinds of magical/occult devices and had traditions that seem weird to us now. My own grandmother had a few of her own that she got from her mother, and so on, like yours. But most 19th-century people, including our grandparents, didn't claim to be receiving direct communication from Almighty God on a regular basis, and for the life of me I can't figure out why Joseph Smith would be even remotely interested in these practices and symbols and talismans if he really had the Ultimate Source of knowledge at his disposal.

Uh, MS. Since you are a self-proclaimed grammar nerd, I like to introduce you to my good friend Mr Paragraph - a close relative of Mr. Sentence. Also, it'd be nice if you gave Ms bold the flick.

Makes things much easier to read, don't you think?

I'm not being critical (except in the pure definition). I'd just like to find your posts easier to read.

(Back On Topic) I think what needs to be established to demonstrate your thesis is the following:

1. That JS (and to a lesser extent his family) engaged to superstitious activity out-of-step with the accepted norms of the day.
2. That such activities continued beyond 1830 when JS would have had an opportunity to be corrected by revelation.

There is also (potentialy) an implicit (3) that is frequently attempted to be drawn by the more "evangelical" COTMC, to whit: There is a direct relationship between these superstitious activities, occultic practices and the coming forth of the BoM. The purpose being to create an implicit conclusion that the BoM is of Satanic origin.

As the proponent, you need to demonstrate points 1 & 2. You should also state whether you are leading towards (3).

If (3) is what you are after, then we have a lay down misere here. If we conclude the BoM is of supernatural origin then ergo it must of necessity be either from God or Satan. The Bible is very clear then in how we determine the origin of the supernatural:

1 John 4:1-3
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.


2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

This makes it really easy. The Book of Mormon affirms the divinity of Jesus Christ on nearly every facing page. Therefore The Book of Mormon must from God.

 

[Obiwan]

*sigh* C'mon, Obi, I thought we got past that "dishonorable critics" thing. You can hardly call it slander when it's documented historical fact - so well documented that even the church doesn't bother to deny it, so why should you? And yes, I agree, SS, that "caja" is quite a stretch from "cadabra," and I thought so when CL made that post, but I thought before I embarrassed myself I'd at least ask for his sources. And since the cryptic diagram is right there (in Wikipedia) and actually spells out the [sorta]word "abracadabra," calling it Spanish in derivation seemed really far-fetched to me. And yes, Swart, I know that many if not most 19th-century people were highly superstitious and employed all kinds of magical/occult devices and had traditions that seem weird to us now. My own grandmother had a few of her own that she got from her mother, and so on, like yours. But most 19th-century people, including our grandparents, didn't claim to be receiving direct communication from Almighty God on a regular basis, and for the life of me I can't figure out why Joseph Smith would be even remotely interested in these practices and symbols and talismans if he really had the Ultimate Source of knowledge at his disposal.

You misunderstand as usual.

If you actually read your "LDS quotes" carefully, you would see they are talking about Joseph and his money digging. We've never denied this.

YOUR CLAIM however is that all the Smiths were involved in the "occult".
This is simply ridiculous, and there is no evidence for it. A little dabbling by Oliver Cowdery with the water wand, or Joseph trying to use his prophetic ability's at finding treasure, or having some lucky charms, and other Smiths doing some traditional folk stuff DOES NOT translate into dabbling into the occult as you all claim.

Further, one of your alls ONLY evidence of them supposedly doing all of this occult stuff is "misused" (falsely interpreted) as I quoted above. Lucy is denying the claim, not providing support for it. So, deal with actual facts for a change, not your negative perceptions.

 

[Moodshadow]

You misunderstand as usual.

If you actually read your "LDS quotes" carefully, you would see they are talking about Joseph and his money digging. We've never denied this.

YOUR CLAIM however is that all the Smiths were involved in the "occult".
This is simply ridiculous, and there is no evidence for it. A little dabbling by Oliver Cowdery with the water wand, or Joseph trying to use his prophetic ability's at finding treasure, or having some lucky charms, and other Smiths doing some traditional folk stuff DOES NOT translate into dabbling into the occult as you all claim.

Further, one of your alls ONLY evidence of them supposedly doing all of this occult stuff is "misused" (falsely interpreted) as I quoted above. Lucy is denying the claim, not providing support for it. So, deal with actual facts for a change, not your negative perceptions.

Obi, you totally misunderstood what Lucy Mack Smith wrote. Totally. But you know what? If you and I are never going to have an even halfway productive discussion, owing to the fact that you're only interested in criticism and insults, then I will respectfully decline further interchanges with you on this topic.

 

[Moodshadow]

Uh, MS. Since you are a self-proclaimed grammar nerd, I like to introduce you to my good friend Mr Paragraph - a close relative of Mr. Sentence. Also, it'd be nice if you gave Ms bold the flick.

Makes things much easier to read, don't you think?

I'm not being critical (except in the pure definition). I'd just like to find your posts easier to read.

(Back On Topic) I think what needs to be established to demonstrate your thesis is the following:

1. That JS (and to a lesser extent his family) engaged to superstitious activity out-of-step with the accepted norms of the day.
2. That such activities continued beyond 1830 when JS would have had an opportunity to be corrected by revelation.

There is also (potentialy) an implicit (3) that is frequently attempted to be drawn by the more "evangelical" COTMC, to whit: There is a direct relationship between these superstitious activities, occultic practices and the coming forth of the BoM. The purpose being to create an implicit conclusion that the BoM is of Satanic origin.

As the proponent, you need to demonstrate points 1 & 2. You should also state whether you are leading towards (3).

If (3) is what you are after, then we have a lay down misere here. If we conclude the BoM is of supernatural origin then ergo it must of necessity be either from God or Satan. The Bible is very clear then in how we determine the origin of the supernatural:

This makes it really easy. The Book of Mormon affirms the divinity of Jesus Christ on nearly every facing page. Therefore The Book of Mormon must from God.

(On-topic) Wow. Just wow. Dr. John (Gray) must have been right all along!

1. No. This wasn't even close to my premise, and in fact, it hasn't been long that I mentioned right here on CF that these practices and ideas and superstitions were quite common in 19th-century America. Remember - when we were discussing our grandmothers?

2. There is no question of this, certainly, and that Jupiter Talisman is concrete proof of it.

As for the potentialy [sic] implicit 3., well, you're totally on your own with this one, which, as far as I'm concerned might as well have emanated from the nether regions of Outer Kolob. You give me far too much credit - such reasoning would never have occurred to me in a hundred zillion years.

(Off-topic) The reason I didn't employ separate paragraphs in that post was simply to save space. Please accept my most abject and profound apology for any difficulty it may have caused you.

The reason I use the bold is simply to make my posts easier to identify and distinguish readily from those of others, and that you would find that worthy of remark, let alone objectionable, is no less than astonishing. You must accustom yourself to it, however, dear Swart, because it has become quite a habit, and one I have no intention of changing any time soon.

 

[Swart]

(On-topic) Wow. Just wow. Dr. John (Gray) must have been right all along!

Haven't been to Mars lately.

2. There is no question of this, certainly, and that Jupiter Talisman is concrete proof of it.

(Swart gets excited) Please: Can you make this one of your two principal objections! This is one of the most easily refuted claims against JS.

You give me far too much credit - such reasoning would never have occurred to me in a hundred zillion years.

Really? Okay, noted for future reference.

Where were you headed?

Please accept my most abject and profound apology for any difficulty it may have caused you.

 

[Moodshadow]

1. Haven't been to Mars lately.

2. (Swart gets excited) Please: Can you make this one of your two principal objections! This is one of the most easily refuted claims against JS.

3. Really? Okay, noted for future reference.

4. Where were you headed?

1. HA! Coulda fooled ME!
2. You may get excited about it, but it's pretty ho-hum stuff to me. I used to get very excited indeed about it, but now it just seems lame. When I finally admitted to myself, after reading real church history (as opposed to church-authorized, church-authored, church-edited, church-whitewashed and church-published church history), that Joseph Smith was not what he claimed to be, then all of this stuff became totally meaningless - except for the oh-by-the-way fact that it is gut-wrenchingly infuriating. But that's another topic...

3. Oh, yeah, f'real. Back to that Venus-Mars thing, for sure.

4. Believe it or not, I've already headed exactly where I was going. I wasn't plotting with secret ulterior motives, lying in wait to jump on anyone, playing Black Widow, or any of that stuff. Just like Horton the Elephant, I said what I meant, and I meant what I said, and that's really about it. Despite the fact that it was fairly common in the 19th century to believe in superstition and engage in water-witching and that sort of thing, it still boggles my mind that Joseph Smith, who claims to have had personal, one-on-one access to the Maker of heaven and earth, would have continued to employ such primitive devices and practices - which the LDS church now deems Satanic - on an everyday basis.

PS - Was this any easier for you to read?

 

[Swart]

2. You may get excited about it, but it's pretty ho-hum stuff to me. I used to get very excited indeed about it, but now it just seems lame.

We are in agreement.

When I finally admitted to myself, after reading real church history (as opposed to church-authorized, church-authored, church-edited, church-whitewashed and church-published church history), that Joseph Smith was not what he claimed to be, then all of this stuff became totally meaningless - except for the oh-by-the-way fact that it is gut-wrenchingly infuriating. But that's another topic...

History is good. History is also kind to no one. To be fair, you should study the overall history of Christianity. Michael Servetus is a good place to start. Compared that, LDS history is a walk in the park. You also need to beware of that Old Testament. The prophets in there - well...

In fact, I like the Catholic approach to history - warts and all. We did bad stuff, but God works through bad people too. Next question please.

4. Believe it or not, I've already headed exactly where I was going. I wasn't plotting with secret ulterior motives, lying in wait to jump on anyone, playing Black Widow, or any of that stuff. Just like Horton the Elephant, I said what I meant, and I meant what I said, and that's really about it. Despite the fact that it was fairly common in the 19th century to believe in superstition and engage in water-witching and that sort of thing, it still boggles my mind that Joseph Smith, who claims to have had personal, one-on-one access to the Maker of heaven and earth, would have continued to employ such primitive devices and practices - which the LDS church now deems Satanic - on an everyday basis.

But as I pointed out, #2 has not been demonstrated.

PS - Was this any easier for you to read?

Heaps!

BTW I enjoy our discussions. I look forward to the day when you return to the fold.

 

[Moodshadow]

1. We are in agreement.
2. History is good. History is also kind to no one. To be fair, you should study the overall history of Christianity. Michael Servetus is a good place to start. Compared that, LDS history is a walk in the park. You also need to beware of that Old Testament. The prophets in there - well...
In fact, I like the Catholic approach to history - warts and all. We did bad stuff, but God works through bad people too. Next question please.
3. But as I pointed out, #2 has not been demonstrated.
4. Heaps!
BTW I enjoy our discussions. I look forward to the day when you return to the fold.

1. We are? I thought you said you WERE excited about it. Please un-confuse me.

2. Yes, I'm well aware of all those ugly warts in the history of Christianity (and Judaism), including those you mentioned. Although you might find them interesting for comparison purposes, they are not really the subject of our discussion, and the attempt at diversion is an unworthy one.

3. No. 2? The Jupiter Talisman - is that what you mean?

4. Good - progress is good!

5. Thank you. I've admired your erudite posts here before and always wanted to converse with you, so this is enjoyable for me, too. But like the old adage says, you can't go home again. Once I learned that Joseph Smith was not what he claimed to be, the rest of it just crumbled at my feet. I have never felt so heartbroken and utterly devastated in my entire life. No matter how much I wanted it still to be true, no matter how hard I tried to justify the things he did, and no matter how hard I tried to reconcile the things current church leaders do, I had to face the fact that I no control over it. It is what it is. And so, my dear Swart, at the risk of dashing your hopes, I must add that the chance of my returning to the LDS church is virtually nil. I cannot be a part of an organization that I fervently believe was founded on falsehood and continues to be run by people who perpetuate the myth. If it sounds harsh to you, I'm sorry, but that's exactly the way I feel. I absolutely adore my still-LDS friends and have a wonderful, loving relationship with them. I admire and appreciate the great programs in the church and in fact wish my own church would implement many of them. I still miss so much about it. But no. It's not going to happen.

 

[Swart]

1. We are? I thought you said you WERE excited about it. Please un-confuse me.

I think your Venus mind is getting lost in the bullet points. We are in agreement with your #2 statement, where you said the AM stuff was "lame".

That's the point I agree with.

As to the excitement: That was with the prospect of your choice of the "Jupiter Talisman" as being a slam dunk - it is, but not in the direction you were thinking. (I'm actully dumbfounded that this keeps getting brought up)

2. Yes, I'm well aware of all those ugly warts in the history of Christianity (and Judaism), including those you mentioned. Although you might find them interesting for comparison purposes, they are not really the subject of our discussion, and the attempt at diversion is an unworthy one.

No. Not attempting to divert. Compare and contrast. Paired examples. A very useful analytical tool.

3. No. 2? The Jupiter Talisman - is that what you mean?

1. That JS (and to a lesser extent his family) engaged to superstitious activity out-of-step with the accepted norms of the day.
2. That such activities continued beyond 1830 when JS would have had an opportunity to be corrected by revelation.

To validate your claim, the above needs to be established. Once that is done, your are at "first base". Otherwise you are engaging in proof by supposition and ampliative reasoning*.

5. Thank you. I've admired your erudite posts here before and always wanted to converse with you, so this is enjoyable for me, too. But like the old adage says, you can't go home again. Once I learned that Joseph Smith was not what he claimed to be, the rest of it just crumbled at my feet. I have never felt so heartbroken and utterly devastated in my entire life. No matter how much I wanted it still to be true, no matter how hard I tried to justify the things he did, and no matter how hard I tried to reconcile the things current church leaders do, I had to face the fact that I no control over it. It is what it is. And so, my dear Swart, at the risk of dashing your hopes, I must add that the chance of my returning to the LDS church is virtually nil. I cannot be a part of an organization that I fervently believe was founded on falsehood and continues to be run by people who perpetuate the myth. If it sounds harsh to you, I'm sorry, but that's exactly the way I feel. I absolutely adore my still-LDS friends and have a wonderful, loving relationship with them. I admire and appreciate the great programs in the church and in fact wish my own church would implement many of them. I still miss so much about it. But no. It's not going to happen.

It's kinda strange, but I was reviewing some LDS history and trying to place myself in your shoes and thinking about ByGrace/OMM/Lyrics Daddy/Eldy and the journey he took from LDS->strident critic->LDS again. I too had my crisis of faith many years ago - which I have posted on this forum. In fact, I could easily have walked your path, or Eldy's path, except that mine would probably have ended in atheism. Fortunately (and perhaps by the grace of God) I followed a different one. The result of which is a testimony that is stronger than before and anchored firmly in Jesus Christ.

Personally, I hope your journey comes full circle. You can interpret that as well-intentioned-but-misguided if you like.

*Ampliative Reasoning - conclusions which contain more information than is present in the premises.

 

[Moodshadow]

I think your Venus mind is getting lost in the bullet points. We are in agreement with your #2 statement, where you said the AM stuff was "lame". That's the point I agree with.

As to the excitement: That was with the prospect of your choice of the "Jupiter Talisman" as being a slam dunk - it is, but not in the direction you were thinking. (I'm actully dumbfounded that this keeps getting brought up)

No. Not attempting to divert. Compare and contrast. Paired examples. A very useful analytical tool.

That JS (and to a lesser extent his family) engaged to superstitious activity out-of-step with the accepted norms of the day.

1. That such activities continued beyond 1830 when JS would have had an opportunity to be corrected by revelation.

To validate your claim, the above needs to be established. Once that is done, your are at "first base". Otherwise you are engaging in proof by supposition and ampliative reasoning*.

It's kinda strange, but I was reviewing some LDS history and trying to place myself in your shoes and thinking about ByGrace/OMM/Lyrics Daddy/Eldy and the journey he took from LDS->strident critic->LDS again. I too had my crisis of faith many years ago - which I have posted on this forum. In fact, I could easily have walked your path, or Eldy's path, except that mine would probably have ended in atheism. Fortunately (and perhaps by the grace of God) I followed a different one. The result of which is a testimony that is stronger than before and anchored firmly in Jesus Christ.

Personally, I hope your journey comes full circle. You can interpret that as well-intentioned-but-misguided if you like.

*Ampliative Reasoning - conclusions which contain more information than is present in the premises.

I can't get the links in your post to work, but even if I could, I doubt it would affect what I'm about to say. Philosophy, analysis, debate and logic were never my strong suits, dear Swart, and I lived so up-close-and-personal with all of the above for 38 years of my life that to entertain the very idea of getting into any of it again makes my Venus mind want to run shrieking toward Pluto. It's not you, it's me - I admit it - but I'm not going there, okay? Deep Philosophical Discussions you can have with your Mars buddies. I'll just say that if you are happy remaining LDS, knowing that Joseph Smith was what he was, then okay, and I'm happy that you've somehow found peace. I could not look myself in the mirror every morning and at the same follow a man who on one hand called himself a prophet of God and on the other hand caroused with teenage girls and told them to keep their relationships secret from his wife. That is not the behavior of a true prophet of God. I could not say to my children, "This is the example we should follow." It's really that simple as far as I'm concerned. Of course there were many, MANY other reasons, but that's one good example, and for purposes of this discussion, it's enough.